W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > March 2008

RE: ISSUE-240: Remove requirement of validity to self-declared DTD [mobileOK Basic tests]

From: Ignacio Marin <ignacio.marin@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:01:02 +0100
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190312465B@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>, "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Cc: "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Hi Sean,

> The group is already looking at mobile applications much farther along
> the spectrum from the DDC to a small desktop computer. Next year will
> we see a need to continue to talk about mobileOK Basic? I suggest
> maybe not, and that will be a great thing. The One Web principle is, I
> think, becoming realized, not because resources are tailoring
> themselves for multiple device profiles, but because profiles are
> becoming more similar than different.

I am not completely sure about that. DDC and mobileOK Basic might be
useful for longer. Mobile web in developing countries is a good reason,
but I agree that the public will demand richer DCs in other
easy-to-guess situations.

Regards,

Nacho 


-----Mensaje original-----
De: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] En
nombre de Sean Owen
Enviado el: jueves, 13 de marzo de 2008 19:38
Para: Jo Rabin
CC: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG
Asunto: Re: ISSUE-240: Remove requirement of validity to self-declared
DTD [mobileOK Basic tests]


On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
>  I support the idea of
>
>
>  >  * replace it by requiring that step only when the System ID
matches a
>  > well-known DTD (which would be listed in the spec)

Sure, this is about what happens in the implementation now, so I can
go along with this. I assume the well-known DTDs would only include
XHTML variants? That's... in fact what we do now too.


>  Sean [Owen] suggested that an answer might be to have a less limiting
XHTML Basic 1.2 - But I'm not sure about that, given that we've waited
so long for Basic 1.1 and it's _still_ not with us.

I don't disagree with the practical argument you make, it's just that
I feel this is clearly an issue with XHTML Basic, as you record here.

I don't think you disagree there either, but again the practical
argument intrudes: when, if ever, would this be "fixed"?

I suggest it ends up being moot. Right now, we plainly need to ship
version 1.0 plus implementation. It's been public for a while, done
its job, and even if this is a fault, it's not a critical one.


If this is then an issue to be solved in mobieOK Basic 1.5 or
somesuch... well I suggest we might never have need of it. BP 1.0,
mobileOK Basic 1.0 will serve out a useful life from 2006 into the
beginnings of next year at least -- the right recommendation at the
right time, not too late or too early.

The group is already looking at mobile applications much farther along
the spectrum from the DDC to a small desktop computer. Next year will
we see a need to continue to talk about mobileOK Basic? I suggest
maybe not, and that will be a great thing. The One Web principle is, I
think, becoming realized, not because resources are tailoring
themselves for multiple device profiles, but because profiles are
becoming more similar than different.

Anyway that is a long way to go to say that whatever the issue is
here, it's a large enough to change that it should be put off, and
things put off to the next revision may (happily) be moot.

Sean
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 22:01:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 March 2008 22:01:40 GMT